|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/25/2006 4:15:46 PM
|
|
|
Kevin1a
Posts: 1
Joined: 2/22/2006
Status: offline
|
I personaly find that I study the Bible best when I study more than one version. I have at least nine versions on my PDA and it has the capability to display them in side by side windows. I tend to favor the KJV over the NIV because I enjoy the way it sounds. I also use two German versions because I feel like one day the Lord may send me there because I have many ties to the country.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/25/2006 5:29:34 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 512
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is a world of difference from "HE appeared in a body"
The word "manifest" is defined by Websters:
- readily perceived by the senses and especially by the sight
- to make evident or certain by showing or displaying
The word "appeared is defined:
- to be or come in sight
- to become evident or manifest
The word "flesh" is defined:
- the physical nature of human beings
- the soft parts of the body of an animal and especially of a vertebrate; especially : the parts composed chiefly of skeletal muscle as distinguished from visceral structures, bone, and integuments
- human beings : MANKIND
The word body is defined as:
- the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead
- the material part or nature of a human being
Those definitions all mean the same thing, so I don't see how they make a world of difference. Now if you are referring to the use of "He" instead of "God", well they mean the same thing as well. Especially when the opening line of verse sixteen identifies God as the subject.
quote:
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared... 1Timothy 1:16a
Saying there is a world of difference that butchers the divinity of Christ is nitpicking, IMO.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/26/2006 10:57:23 AM
|
|
|
psende
Posts: 86
Joined: 7/5/2005
From: The Land of Sky Blue Waters
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
This seems to be one of the only real reason people prefer the KJV, they think it reads like shakespere.
He was one of the translators.....
The stuff you learn here.
Thanks Dave. I was just reading your replies in the Mk 1:2 thread and appreciate your explantions. Thanks for sharing your wealth of information and biblical insights.
_____________________________
"This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent." John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/28/2006 11:47:09 AM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
Well, one issue for me is that the KJV relied on the textus receptus (a term created as a marketing ploy) that was translated from latin and relied on the Byzantine manuscripts, which have very little and unreliable support.
In contrast, there is substantial support for the Alexandrian text, which also relies in older manuscripts (Read: closer to the originals) than the exaulted byzantine text.
More and more I am liking the ESV Bible (though I don't necessarily support the main motivations for it's production - which was (I think) to counteract the TNIV).
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/7/2006 1:40:33 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2081
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Saved34
But I believe the NIV fails to deliver doctrinaly. In some instances like 1Timothy 3:16, which in the NIV loses it's entire meaning. If you've never read that same verse in the King James, you would have no idea that the NIV basically BUTCHERS the deity of Christ in this verse.
If what you say is true, that because of 1Tim 3:16, the NIV denies the deity of Christ. Does that mean that the KJV denies the person of the Spirit?
(NIV)
Romans 8:16
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
Romans 8:26
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.
(KJV)
Romans 8:16
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:26
26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
I think that you'll agree it's absurd to assert that the KJV denies the person of the Spirit simply because it uses a different pronoun. I think it's equally absurd to say that the NIV is in any way denigrating the deity of Christ by using a pronoun instead of God.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/7/2006 11:41:06 PM
|
|
|
harmonmsp
Posts: 166
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the minefields of theological reflection
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
More and more I am liking the ESV Bible (though I don't necessarily support the main motivations for it's production - which was (I think) to counteract the TNIV).
Good words, friend. And yes, the ESV is a very scholarly and reliable translation, unfortunately overshadowed by its contentious means of publication. That, and it mostly just fine-tunes the RSV (i.e., note the theological shift in 1 John 2:2 going from 'expiation' to 'propitiation' ... which shift I agree with, but the word does not literally mean either defintively). That said, the TNIV production process wasn't exactly a beaming example of how to go about revising an already existing, very popular translation either. Oh, well. 
_____________________________
Graces,
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/9/2006 12:30:57 PM
|
|
|
c5a
Posts: 1
Joined: 3/9/2006
Status: offline
|
Hello all - this is my first post, and as this has been a struggle with me for the past year, I gravitated to this thread.
I use KJV, and being an engineer and mostly technical, I struggle with it. But I use it because I think it best represents the true original manuscripts. The reason is the Greek texts used. All of the newer versions use primarily the same ones, which are highly suspect. There may be some that are older, but that doesn't mean they are more accurate. Regardless, having 4 children, this was of concern to me and I have been ok with the NKJV, while the KJVO crown abhors (I don't consider myself of that crowd), it uses the same greek that the kjv does.
BUT, in our highly (former) seeker sensitive southern baptist church, our music minister's wife recently read from the message standing behind the pulpit. That is where I have to draw the line (mostly because of the version, some because of the gender). So I guess my somewhat uneducated opinion is that there is a fine line between NIV and others that use suspect greek text and an abomination like the message, and refuel, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/9/2006 12:52:07 PM
|
|
|
David_D
Posts: 126
Joined: 11/11/2005
From: OH AYTCH - EYE OH
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: c5a
BUT, in our highly (former) seeker sensitive southern baptist church, our music minister's wife recently read from the message standing behind the pulpit. That is where I have to draw the line (mostly because of the version, some because of the gender). So I guess my somewhat uneducated opinion is that there is a fine line between NIV and others that use suspect greek text and an abomination like the message, and refuel, etc.
I wouldn't call The Message an abomination. It's a paraphrase, and is meant only to convey the general meaning of the text, not to be looked to for study and teaching. Think of it as though you were trying to explain what a particular Bible verse meant to your friends in conversation. You aren't doing your friends a disservice by not quoting rote from the King James, right? You're just trying to get across what you think the passage is talking about.
I do agree that it's inappropriate to try and teach from a paraphrase during a service, though.
_____________________________
Jesus, Jesus, precious Jesus
O for grace to trust Him more!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/9/2006 12:54:40 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2861
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
NIV -- Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
KJV -- Romans 9:5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
NIV -- John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
KJV --John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So, which version "BUTCHERS the deity of Christ" in these two passages? Guess what? It's not the NIV.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/9/2006 1:34:30 PM
|
|
|
Olympian
Posts: 35
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: c5a
Hello all - this is my first post, and as this has been a struggle with me for the past year, I gravitated to this thread.
I use KJV, and being an engineer and mostly technical, I struggle with it. But I use it because I think it best represents the true original manuscripts. The reason is the Greek texts used. All of the newer versions use primarily the same ones, which are highly suspect. There may be some that are older, but that doesn't mean they are more accurate. Regardless, having 4 children, this was of concern to me and I have been ok with the NKJV, while the KJVO crown abhors (I don't consider myself of that crowd), it uses the same greek that the kjv does.
BUT, in our highly (former) seeker sensitive southern baptist church, our music minister's wife recently read from the message standing behind the pulpit. That is where I have to draw the line (mostly because of the version, some because of the gender). So I guess my somewhat uneducated opinion is that there is a fine line between NIV and others that use suspect greek text and an abomination like the message, and refuel, etc.
It can be argued the other way as well, the Byzantine text or the favored term "majority text" reveals corruption as well. Note Laura's examples. There are more.
The
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/9/2006 11:03:48 PM
|
|
|
harmonmsp
Posts: 166
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the minefields of theological reflection
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: c5a
But I use it because I think it best represents the true original manuscripts. The reason is the Greek texts used. All of the newer versions use primarily the same ones, which are highly suspect.
This would unfortunately be an assumption on your part. All of the newer versions use the same two compiled apparati for all of the older texts. The older manuscripts do not consist of a consensus on all verses, that Nestle-Aland or United Bible Societies then communicates. If you look at the Nestle-Aland text, you'll see a WIDE variety of possibilities, complete with which papyrus each variant comes from. If you're really interested in seeing why the N-A text chose to put which words in first, then read Bruce Metzger's 'Analytical Commentary on the New Testament'. In other words, the newer translations use all of the existing manuscripts, and usually go with what the N-A or UBS texts think is the primary reading, but no one has to do that. In any case, your reasoning is a little biased from the get-go. Perhaps I should pose the question: why do you say they are 'suspect'?
quote:
There may be some that are older, but that doesn't mean they are more accurate.
That's logically possible, but not a sound argument. What might you think, that the manuscripts that were composed in 150AD or earlier should not be preferred to the ones majorly compiled in 1300? After all, the main thing that the non-Majority text research is trying to do is, really, to get the best possible evidence for what the first churches were using.
quote:
BUT, in our highly (former) seeker sensitive southern baptist church, our music minister's wife recently read from the message standing behind the pulpit. That is where I have to draw the line (mostly because of the version, some because of the gender).
You might be surprised, but I and many others who prefer the older text evidence truly agree with you on this, although we wouldn't exactly call it an 'abomination', but rather not completely reliable.
< Message edited by harmonmsp -- 3/9/2006 11:06:12 PM >
_____________________________
Graces,
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/10/2006 8:21:11 AM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 939
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
In another thread in the God forum here, someone wrote:
quote:
The fact is that the translators of the KJV were outstanding scholars who were extremely well-verse in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic and other related languages. Furthermore, the fact is that they were led by the Spirit in doing their work, and as a result the King James Bible became the Authorized Version (AV) even though there were many excellent contemporaneous translations (such as the Geneva Bible).
What struck me about this was the conclusion that the aforementioned reasons were what produced the result that the KJV became the "Authorized Version". This didn't sit right with me and I have to comment.
When James IV of Scotland came onto the throne of England in 1603, he became King James I. One of the first things he did as monarch was to call the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Though that assembly was not originally to take up the task of considering a new translation of the Bible, it did happen.
So upon the king's command, a resolution was passed:
quote:
"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
Upon completion, the translators included a letter of dedication to King James in the Bible itself that noted the king's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue."
This is why it was subsequently known to be called the "Authorized Version", because it was authorized by King James. All revisions to this Bible had to be considered by Parliament and as such, went through several revisions and editions before you have what we know as the KJV today.
Sorry for the rant. I just couldn't swallow the implication of the quoted post.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/10/2006 8:52:59 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4073
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
Thanks neuronstatic.
The church I grew up in was almost KJVO, because of the "Authorized Version" printed on it. They reasoned that only God could authorize a version of the bible.
That was primarly due to ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/11/2006 11:40:56 AM
|
|
|
papist
Posts: 5
Joined: 3/6/2006
Status: offline
|
God did authorize a version of the Bible. It had 73 books and was canonized by the One Church He instituted upon cephas(rock, peter).
The KJV came about after there were already over 600 translations for the world, made by monks and priests and bishops in the One Church Christ gave us.
The KJV took from the only Bible at the time, which was Catholic, and tried to take credit for something already studied, bled and died for by catholic for over 1600 years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/11/2006 12:24:52 PM
|
|
|
chalkstc
Posts: 540
Joined: 5/13/2005
Status: offline
|
All,
Below is just one out of many texts from two translations. Tell me which one is more accurate.............# 1 or # 2?
1) Matt. 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:"
2) Matt. 1:25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son."
Frankie
PS ever wonder how all those people got saved from what some on this thread call an "inferior" or errant manuscript of the Textus Receptus if it was not true to God's Word?
Main Entry:1per*vert
Pronunciation:p*r-*v*rt
Function:verb
1 : to lead astray : CORRUPT *pervert the young*
2 : to divert to a wrong purpose : MISAPPLY *pervert evidence*
Synonyms deprave, debase, debauch, demoralize
–per*ver*ter noun
How were these saints lead astray and yet became saints?
_____________________________
Prov 27:17 iron sharpeneth iron as a man the countenance of his friend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/11/2006 12:43:54 PM
|
|
|
chalkstc
Posts: 540
Joined: 5/13/2005
Status: offline
|
All,
quote:
His words have not passed away, I can hold up the KJV or any other (I like the TNIV) and say this is the Word of God without any lie in my heart or head or mouth. The word of God is in the metanarrative of scripture and this is the same in every translation, it just varies a little in a few sections, but these sections do not affect the metanarrative.
Many Christians think it really doesn't matter which version you use. They have been told that the thousands of differences between Bible versions are not significant, and do not affect important doctrines.
The following list is provided to show a some of the many differences in the modern versions which affect important doctrines of the Christian Faith. We are using the NIV for this comparison because it has become very popular among Evangelicals. Most of the same differences can be found in the NASB and others. You decide if these differences are significant enough to warrant concern.
1. "HELL" is found in the following passages in the KJV, but not in the NIV: Deut. 32:22, 2 Sam. 22:6, Job 11:8, Job 26:6, Psalm 9:17, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 18:5, Psalm 55:15, Psalm 86:13, Psalm 116:3, Psalm 139:8, Prov. 5:5, Prov. 7:27, Prov. 9:18, Prov. 15:11, Prov. 15:24, Prov. 23:14, Prov. 27:20, Isa. 5:14, Isa. 14:9, Isa. 14:15, Isa. 28:15 Isa. 28:18, Isa. 57:9, Eze. 31:16, Eze. 32:21, Eze. 32:27 Amos 9:2, Jonah 2:2, Hab. 2:5, Matt. 16:18, Luke 10:15, Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31, Rev. 1:18, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 20:13, Rev. 20:14.
In these cases "HELL" has been replaced by, "the grave, the depths, death, Sheol, Hades," etc.
2. In the KJV Jesus is Eternal.
Micah 5:2 [KJV] "...whose goings forth have been from of old from everlasting."
In the NIV Jesus had a beginning.
Micah 5:2 [NIV] "...whose origins are from old, from ancient times."
3. In the KJV Jesus was Mary's firstborn Son.
Matt. 1:25 [KJV] "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:"
In the NIV Jesus was "a son."
Matt. 1:25 [NIV] "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son."
4. In the KJV Jesus tells us HOW to cast out demons.
Matt. 17:21 [KJV] "Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
In the NIV he does not. The entire verse was omitted. Who do you suppose benifits from this omission? [Fasting is also removed in Mark 9:29 & Acts 10:30.]
5. In the KJV Joseph was not Jesus' father.
Luke 2:33 [KJV] "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
In the NIV Joseph was Jesus' father.
Luke 2:33 [NIV] "The child's father and mother marvelled at what was said about him."
[It is sometimes argued that the KJV also calls Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2:48. It is true that Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus' father. However, if you read the next verse you will see that Jesus corrected His mother, claiming that God was His Father. In the case of Luke 2:33, it is Luke, narrating the story, who calls Joseph Jesus' father in the modern versions.]
6. In the KJV Jesus is God's Son. In the NIV Jesus is God's servant.
Acts 3:13 [KJV] "...the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;..."
Acts 3:13 [NIV] "...the God of our fathers has glorified his servant Jesus:..."
Acts 3:26 [KJV] "...God, having raised up his Son Jesus,..."
Acts 3:26 [NIV] "...God raised up his servant,..."
Acts 4:27 [KJV] "...thy holy child Jesus..."
Acts 4:27 [NIV] "...your holy servant Jesus..."
7. In the KJV the Ethiopian Eunuch made a profession of faith prior to baptism.
Acts 8:37 [KJV] "And Philip said, If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
In the NIV he did not. The entire verse was omitted.
[This verse is extremely important in demonstrating that a person must believe the gospel before he can be baptized].
8. In the KJV believers are indwelled by the Spirit.
Eph. 5:9 [KJV] "For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness...."
In the NIV they are indwelled by the "light."
Eph. 5:9 [NIV] "for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness.."
9. In the KJV we are saved through Christ's blood alone.
Col. 1:14 [KJV] "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
In the NIV, ???
Col. 1:14 [NIV] "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
10. In the KJV Jesus is God in the flesh.
1 Timothy 3:16 [KJV] "...God was manifest in the flesh,..."
In the NIV He is not.
1 Timothy 3:16 [NIV] "...He appeared in a body,..."[Who is "he?"]
11. The Trinity is clearly taught in the KJV.
1 John 5:7 [KJV] "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
This verse is completely omitted from the NIV.
The King James Version has endured for almost 400 years, and is still going strong, even though it is attacked relentlesly by modern scholars.
Have you noticed that each modern versions has a life span of 20 to 50 years before it goes out of print, and is replaced with a new and improved version? Sure, there is justification for making a revision of the KJV, since the English language has changed considerably over the past 400 years. The NKJV has filled this need. But, why do we need the New Revised Standard Version? Was the Revised Standard Version defective? The English language has not changed much since the 50s. Why do we need the New American Standard Version? Was something wrong with the American Standard Version? The English language hasn't changed that much since 1901. Why has the NASB been updated for 1997? The English language hasn't changed since the 60's. Why do we need the New Jerusalem Bible. What was wrong with the Jerusalem Bible? Why is the NIV being continuously updated with each new printing? Since all modern versions are replaced, and go out of print in a few short years, what makes you think the one you're reading is reliable? Don't get too used to it, don't memorize too much of it, it won't survive as long as you do.
Certainly there is the need from time to time for revision, due to the evolution in language. The English language of the KJV is very old and awkward for those not used to it. There is nothing wrong with a revision that simply brings the Bible in conformity to modern language. The problem is, the plethora of modern versions flooding the bookstores now, are not being made simply to update the language to conform to modern use. Nor have there been large strides made in our understanding of the original languages, that would justify so many new versions.
The real reason for the flood of new versions is $$$. Modern versions have simply not had the phenominal staying power that the KJV has enjoyed. In order to keep sales up, the publishers must constantly come out with "new" and "improved" versions in order to get people to trade in the old for the new.
But, due to copyright laws, the "new" versions must be significantly different from previous versions in order to qualify for copyright protection. So, modern translators, who work for the publishers, give their new versions a good shakedown in order to make enough changes to get their copyright. Then the publisher packages it attractively, with a new slick advertizing campaign. And, Christians just have to get the latest and best "new" and "improved" Bible version. So much for an unchanging final authority.
Prov 30:5 6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
(KJV)
Rev 22:18 19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(KJV)
After reading the texts side by side, which do see as more accurate?
Frankie
_____________________________
Prov 27:17 iron sharpeneth iron as a man the countenance of his friend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 3/11/2006 1:06:19 PM
|
|
|
seventyseven
Posts: 18
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
The issue with Bible translations is more easily approached by saying, most Bibles will give the general idea. However, when you get into details of translating and interpretation then it is wise to understand what perspective your own Bible comes from, and, if you have the means, get a different one coming from a different perspective. There are many translation issues, and there will always be new translations of the Bible coming out. As mentioned, the Message, more recent, it is better understood as a paraphrase, but if you get into details of verses it is not helpful, it loses a certain depth. It will also need to be updated more often as it uses a number of modern terms and expression, which will likely change quickly.
so rather than saying what translation is best, just try and understand what perspective yours comes from, be aware that it will unlikely be perfect, and get a different type of translation if you can afford it. And if you can't, just remember that when you start getting into the little details of various verses and passages, remember, it is at those times that differences in translations have the most impact, so be humble about what you take out of a passage.
I think most Bible translation loyalty is more about pride!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/11/2006 1:13:20 PM
|
|
|
john_mark
Posts: 526
Joined: 7/20/2005
Status: offline
|
Acts 9:7 "And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice and seeing no man". KJV
Acts 22:9 " And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me." KJV
This is the account of Paul's conversion as told in the KJV. The KJV seems to contradict itself here. You could argue that the underlying Greek Text that the KJV is based on doesnt have this contradiction and you would be right. But KJV people often say that the KJV does away with the need for the underlying Greek text because of the KJV's accuracy.
By the way the corrupt NASB translate Acts22:9 " And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/11/2006 5:33:02 PM
|
|
|
chalkstc
Posts: 540
Joined: 5/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Smart,
quote:
Acts 9:7 "And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice and seeing no man". KJV
Acts 22:9 " And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me." KJV
In the first text they heard a voice or recognized it as a voice. In the second, they did not understand what the voice was actually saying to Paul.
Here's another text about voices and what was perceived.......................
John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
It all has to do with the hearing ear. That is why Jesus says let him who has ears to hear; hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
Matt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive :
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
I know the KJV is not as perfect as the Greek. No translation is. But to say it is a bad translation or loose, is far from the truth.
What would you have to complain about if you were saved 400 yrs ago? The Latin Vulgate? Or Tinsdale or Geneva?
But set along side verse for verse, the newer translations are found wanting when leaving out key themes such as "firstborn". If you do not feel it is key, then stick with your choice of versions. You can have the onion skin, or dip into it's layers where the juice is.
YBIC,
Frankie
_____________________________
Prov 27:17 iron sharpeneth iron as a man the countenance of his friend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/11/2006 6:33:22 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2081
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
Chalkstc, it might help if you actually read the thread you're posting in. Ignoring others is not a good way to get a point across.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/11/2006 8:14:46 PM
|
|
|
chalkstc
Posts: 540
Joined: 5/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Hi,
quote:
ORIGINAL: figmentPez
Chalkstc, it might help if you actually read the thread you're posting in. Ignoring others is not a good way to get a point across.
Completly lost me here. Please explain. There are two threads on the KJV. One I understand has been deleted. Did I miss something ?
I responded to smartyna in post #44.
Frankie
_____________________________
Prov 27:17 iron sharpeneth iron as a man the countenance of his friend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/15/2006 10:30:55 AM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 199
Status: offline
|
Hey, did you guys know that the TR upon which KJV proponants claim the KJV is based, came out AFTER the KJV by about 20 years? So much for the myth that the KJV is based on the TR!
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 3/15/2006 8:56:34 PM
|
|
|
called2valor
Posts: 73
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Minnesota
Status: offline
|
The funny thing about KJVO is what if you didn't even speak English? or if you are one of those able to read the manuscripts in the original languages?
It really wouldn't make sense to hold that position then.
I love the KJV, personally and when I quote scripture, it is what naturally comes out of my mouth, because I am so used to it.
I am, however, not foolish enough to think there aren't other superior English language translations.
I especially enjoy the scholarliness and wide acceptance of the NRSV, and get a kick out of The Message.
The whole purpose of the Authorized Version was to make the Bible accessible in the language of the people, which it did for centuries - English has changed dramatically and more information has come to light on how to deal with the languages of the manuscripts - it would be senseless NOT to have other modern English language translations.
Having said that, I do praise the KJV in its beauty and it has been a blessing in my life :)
Without it, I would have never come to know Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/1/2006 12:05:22 PM
|
|
|
rabstark
Posts: 161
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Saved34
"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is a world of difference from "HE appeared in a body"
The Greek here is "hos" which is "he", not "theos" which is "God". Not a fan of the NIV at all, but in this case, their translation is actually more accurate than the KJV's.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
